Don't prejudge Haneef

The utter sensationalism, bias and hysteria
that has attended most reportage and commentary on the arrest and detention
of Haneef Ahmed in Australia is now being progressively exposed for
its irrationality and error, as a few sane voices begin to put things
in a perspective that has some connection to reality. Regrettably, the
media frenzy has substantially been fed by - and, in turn, has fed -
the responses of the Indian Government at the highest level, creating
a cycle of disinformation that can only bring all parties to contempt.

I recall the deep frustration we felt
when Western Governments stonewalled India on all cases relating to
Khalistani terrorist activities, safe havens, mobilisation, funding
and propaganda in foreign countries, during the period of terrorism
in Punjab. Before they were jerked awake by 9/11 and subsequent Islamist
attacks on Western targets, no amount of evidence was ever enough to
convince these countries that a fugitive being demanded by India on
extradition was actually a terrorist. Progressive disclosures relating
to the Kanishka bombing conspiracy in Canada - which resulted in 329
deaths - have demonstrated the degree to which Western agencies were
willing to ignore terrorist activities directed against India from their
soil.

The boot is now on the other foot, and,
in the Haneef case, we are behaving as unreasonably towards Australia
as various Western powers did toward India. It needs to be clearly emphasised
that there are no allegations that Haneef has been mistreated, tortured
or otherwise discriminated against. He has been held in custody in connection
with an extraordinarily serious crime - the failed terrorist attacks
in London and Glasgow - on incontrovertible evidence, his SIM card,
that ties him directly to the terrorists. No investigative agency will
treat such a link lightly, and Australian authorities have indicated
that there is other evidence that has not yet been disclosed (rightly,
in view of the systematic leaks by defence lawyers and the process of
trial by the Press that is currently ongoing).

In any event, the investigations into
this case span three countries - the UK, India and Australia - and no
enforcement authority will allow a suspect to go free until all the
evidence has been assessed. This is inevitable where such close linkages
to terrorists - if not to terrorist activity - are demonstrated, and
even if Haneef is innocent, it remains the regrettable case that his
troubles will not end until the investigations are concluded.

The Indian media has repeatedly paraded
Haneef's family members, including his mother and his wife, and treated
their testimonies as incontrovertible proof of his 'innocence'. While
this crude theatre of the 'pornography of other people's suffering'
may be good for TRP ratings, and may even inspire India's Prime Minister
to comment, it has absolutely no evidentiary value.

In a long career in policing, including
extended tenures dealing with insurgencies and terrorism, I have only
rarely come across a family of a criminal or terrorist who is willing
to admit the culpability of their son, brother, husband or other close
relative, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Haneef's parents
and wife in India cannot have any conclusive knowledge of his activities
in the UK or in Australia - and his innocence or guilt would need to
be demonstrated on altogether different grounds.

Concerns have also been expressed over
the decision to hold Haneef in solitary confinement. Apart from the
basis of this decision in Australian law, this is perhaps the most humane
decision that could have been taken. Australian authorities have discreetly
spoken of 'privacy', but the truth is, such a measure is best for Haneef's
protection.

Few people in India are, perhaps, acquainted
with the curious case Dhiren Barot aka Issa al Britani aka Abu Issa
al Hindi, the Kenyan-born Britisher of Indian ethnicity, who converted
to Islam and joined Al Qaeda in plotting to detonate a radioactive 'dirty
bomb' and to commit other acts of mass terrorism in the UK. Barot was
convicted on these charges in October 2006 and sentenced to 30 years
in prison. On July 16, 2007, Barot was attacked by other prisoners at
the maximum security Frankland Prison in Durham, and was permanently
disfigured after boiling water and, later, boiling oil, was thrown over
him.

There is a well-established policy in
Western detention centres that holds certain categories of detenues,
including paedophiles and terrorists, both suspected and convicted,
in isolated facilities or solitary confinement for their own safety.

None of these considerations have found
much space in the frenetic reportage on the issue, which has been entirely
prejudged. This has become a staple of successive media trials that
have taken place on high profile cases in the recent past. In almost
every case, a terrorist is never a terrorist - often even after he has
been convicted, and his conviction upheld by a succession of courts,
right up to the Supreme Court. On the other hand, we find that the police
are always - with or without evidence - guilty of 'human rights violations'
irrespective of the actual evidence, or of the procedural integrity
of their actions.

All generalisations are subject to exception,
but it is increasingly the case that most media organisations in India
have become propagandists, resorting to outright falsehoods, 'sloganising'
every issue, routinely abusing and demonising particular parties, while
others are shielded or exempted from even the most cursory examination
or censure.

Thomas Jefferson once remarked that
the man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who
reads nothing but newspapers. The deep ignorance of history, fact, process
and law that characterises news organisations today - and most prominently
the electronic media - has trivialised and distorted the gravest and
most momentous concerns of our age, and there appears to be an inverse
relationship between the power and reach of the media in India and its
adherence to any acceptable standards of reportage and conduct.

A deep arrogance is compounding profound
ignorance to produce some of the most unfortunate commentaries on the
Haneef case. We must not prejudge Haneef. This means, essentially, that,
till investigation is complete and all the evidence is in, we must not
conclude either that he is guilty or innocent.

The Australian investigative authorities
are best positioned to assess the evidence currently at hand, and unless
there is clear indication of abuse, torture, racism or procedural irregularities,
we must invest our faith in their system, even as we hope that, when
our turn comes, others will find it possible to trust our far more imperfect
systems.